Iran
is politically and economically stronger because of the agreement on
its nuclear programme and the partial end of sanctions.

Israel
and Saudi Arabia had argued in their different ways that such a deal
would open the door to a radical expansion of Iranian influence in
the Middle East. The late Saudi King Abdullah was notorious for
calling on the US to go to war with Iran and “cut off the head of
the snake”. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu famously
produced a cartoon drawing at the UN to show how close Iran was to
producing a nuclear bomb.

If
all this demonisation and threat inflation had been true then the
agreement with Iran would mark a transformation of the politics of
the Middle East. Iran would pause only to digest new oil revenues and
an end to its pariah status before embarking on a policy of
aggression across the region. In reality the political landscape is
changed but not transformed by limited détente between the US and
Iran while the inter-related wars and crises in Syria, Iraq and Yemen
remain largely as they were.

A
remarkable feature of the wider Middle East over the past 15 years
has been that the most-radical instruments of change have been the US
and its allies, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, which
should have had the greatest interest in maintaining the status quo.

Provoked
by 9/11, a US-led coalition overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan in
2001 and Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003. Iran was delighted to find
that without it having to lift a finger the West had disposed of two
of its worst enemies.

In
2011 the West, led by the US and Sunni states, saw the popular
uprisings throughout the Arab world as a chance to get rid of regimes
with whom they were at odds. The war in Syria was an opportunity to
weaken Iran by eliminating its biggest ally in the Arab world, but
instead the war, and likewise that in Yemen, may end up doing more
damage to Iran’s rivals such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf
monarchies.

There
will presumably be less hostility between the US and Iran in future,
but there is little sign of this making much difference to the wars
in Syria and Yemen. Iran may be attending the Syrian peace talks in
Vienna on 25 January, but there is limited expectation that the
negotiations will succeed. The US is staying loyal to its allies such
as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey which are the bedrock of its power
in the Middle East. Claims that President Barack Obama was dumping
old alliances in favour of new ones were always exaggerated.

The
most-striking feature of the present agreement is that Iran has
escaped years of isolation and the threat of war without sustaining
much damage. It also looks a stronger regional power because many of
its neighbours are weakened by internal divisions or civil war.

Israel
vs Iran: Israel loses, *big* time

Today
I have already posted two excellent analyses of the (possibly
temporary) failure of the USA to submit Iran to its will: one
by Alexander
Mercouris,
the other by Soraya
Sepahpour Ulrich.
I shall not repeat their very arguments here, mainly because both see
this as a conflict between the USA and Iran, whereas I see that as a
conflict between Israel and Iran in which Israel attempted, but
failed, to get the USA to fight on its behalf. This is also,
albeit to a lesser degree, a conflict opposing the House of Saud to
Iran, and the KSA is the other big loser here. But first, let
us look at the real causes
of this confrontation.

First
and foremost, I have never accepted the theory that the reason behind
this was some kind of Iranian military nuclear program. While
there is no doubt that Iran has been trying to master a host of
nuclear technologies for many years, and while some of them could
conceivable by used for military purposes, I am absolutely convinced
that the US Israel Lobby and the Neocons have used this as
a pretext to
trigger a confrontation between Iran and the USA. Why do I say
that? For two reasons:

First,
there has never
been any real evidence of an Iranian military nuclear program,
but even more important is the fact that Iran
never had any need for nuclear weapons.
A lot of anti-Iranian propaganda is directly predicated on the notion
that having nuclear weapons is highly desirable, yields some big
advantage, and that all nations would want to acquire them. This is
utter nonsense. In reality, possessing a few nuclear devices
would only turn these devices into high priority targets for
destruction by the USA and/or Israel. And even if, by some
miracle, the Iranians managed to hide these devices while deploying
them on missiles or aircraft, using any one such device would
guarantee a massive retaliation from the Empire. What is the
point of having a few nukes when Israel has hundreds? Finally,
the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has declared many times
that nuclear weapons are forbidden for Iran because they are
un-Islamic. But we are so used to being ruled by lying
politicians that we have apparently lost the ability to imagine that
any leader would actually speak the truth, be guided by his
conscience or, even less so, his faith. So we just dismissed it
all.

Second,
the threat which Iran really poses to Israel (and the KSA) is not a
nuclear one – it is acivilizational one.
Think of it:

Iran
is an Islamic
Republic and
the only country on the planet which has dared to openly
defy both Israel and the USA.
Not only that, it also represent a radically
different model of Islam than the one of the Saudi Wahabis.
Iran is a country which has managed to survive
a war unleashed against it by the joint efforts of the USA, the
Soviet Union, France and Iraq,
which prevailed
against the most powerful Baathist ruler of the Middle-East,
and which then proceeded to survive
economically and politically in spite of decades of crippling
sanctions imposed
by all the industrialized countries on the planet. Furthermore,
and in contrast to all the Arab and Muslim countries out there, Iran
is the only one which as always truly supported
the Palestinian cause and
which has provided crucial
backing for the most formidable national liberation movement on the
planet: Hezbollah.
So yes, Iran is very, very dangerous for Israel and for the Saudis.

This
is why since roughly 2002 the usual cabal of US deep state
actors, the Neocons, the Israel Lobby, the Israelis themselves and,
of course, the Saudis have embarked on a massive campaign to force
Iran to its knees and give in to totally ridiculous demands which go
way beyond what the NPT mandates (note: while Iran has always been a
member in good standing of the NPT, Israel has never accepted to
become a member; but then, Israel is not a “rogue state” but the
“only democracy in the Middle-East”, right?).

Then
things began acquiring their own momentum: if the Empire and Israel
had decreed that Iran must either comply or be turned into ruins
(economically or militarily) then this absolutely must happen.
But, of course, it did not. So breaking Iran soon became a goal
in itself: to prove that nobody can defy the AngloZionists and
survive. Iran, of course, not only survived but prospered.
And thanks to the fantastically short-sighted policies of the USA and
Israel, Iran actually managed to increase its
influence in the region, especially after the US invasion of Iraq.
Not only has Iran become a key player in Iraq, but thanks to the
“Divine Victory” of Hezbollah against the “invincible Tsahal”
in 2006 Iran also became the ally and patron of the only military
force in the region to have single-handedly defeated the Zionist
state.

As
for the Saudis, they are terrified of this Russian-Iranian-Hezbollah
coalition which, they believe, is threatening them, and their
anti-Shia crusade in Bahrein, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.
The Saudis also fear the fact that Iran is the proof that an Islamic
state does not have to be a backward, primitive and oppressive
regime, but that Islam, modernity and people-power can coexist and be
successfully combined (hence the failure of the CIA-backed Iranian
elites to overthrown the Islamic Republic during the “Gucci
Revolution”).

It
is therefore not surprising that the Israelis and Saudis are
absolutely livid at the agreement negotiated between Iran and the
P5+1. For these two countries, the lifting of sanctions against
Iran, even combined with the imposition of new, “mini-sanctions”,
by the USA, represents the failure of over a decade of sustained
anti-Iranian efforts.

This
is now the 2nd time that Obama has agreed to basically exchange
something against nothing: the first time around, Obama had to cancel
a US attack against Syria in exchange for the (costly) destruction
of utterly
useless Syrian
chemical weapons, and now Obama is lifting sanctions in exchange for
the monitoring of a non-existent Iranian
military nuclear program. The Israelis fully understand that,
and it is no wonder that they hate Obama with a passion.

I
sure hope that I am wrong, but I cannot conceive of the Israelis or
Saudis simply accepting this situation. There is no
way the Zionist and Wahabi crazies will allow Iran to
successfully humiliate them and continue to prosper and grow right in
their “back yard” (from their point of view, of course).

In
purely military terms, neither Israel nor the KSA have what it takes
to successfully attack Iran, nevermind defeating it. The
Israelis were not even capable of controlling a minor Lebanese town
right across their own border border (Bint Jbeil) even though they
tried for 33 day. As for the insanely wealthy Saudis can’t
even defeat the dirt-poor Houthis in Yemen. If anything, the
KSA and Israel are the proof that neither money not expensive
high-tech hardware is not what builds a strong military force.
Compare them with the Iranians who are the
folks who trained Hezbollah!
QED.

As
for the US armed forces, they are overstretched, over-committed and
barely holding on to a few positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
they don’t have what it takes to fight Iran either, at least not on
the ground. And, let’s be honest here, the US armed forces
are much better at organizing high-visibility “PR drives”
(literally) involving a few APCS and Humvees in the Baltics, the
Ukraine and Poland than at fighting a determined enemy. So even
if most Presidential candidates now speak about “confronting
Russia”, the reality is that the US cannot do much more than
bombing a country like Serbia, and even that took the full support of
NATO air forces and ended up in an abject failure (at least from the
purely military point of view).

This
is why the Empire will have to turn to its traditional set of dirty
tricks: false flags, support for various terrorist groups, subversion
of the Islamic Republic by means of the local money elites, sabotage,
“human rights” campaigns (à la Neda),
support for “gay rights”, arming of separatists groups, etc.

But,
at least for the time being, this is a huge victory for Iran and and
equally huge defeat for Israel: the poor Zionists have now been
robbed of not one, but two wars
they wanted so badly, and even their “success” in Libya is not
enough of a consolation. I can hear the desperate oy
vey shouts
even from here :-)

Since
this is a great day for Iran, I leave you with a beautiful song
written by the Iranian rapper Yas in reaction to the release of the
US propaganda movie 300 (see the translated lyrics below the video).
Enjoy!

The
Saker

Iran
versus US: Iran Wins

The
lifting of sanctions is an unequivocal victory for Iran, sealing its
regional position, and leaving its nuclear capability intact

That
programme was not however intended as a threat to the US or Israel or
– needless to say – the EU.

The
Iranian leadership is fully aware that a nuclear weapons programme
targeting those countries is far more likely to provoke an attack on
Iran than to deter one, and that Iran might not survive such an
attack.

Rather
Iran’s nuclear programme was intended to deter a nuclear attack
from Iran’s main regional rival – Saddam Hussein’s Iraq –
which is known to have had a nuclear weapons programme in the decade
preceding the 1991 Gulf War.

Having
fought a bitter war against Saddam Hussein between 1980 and 1988,
Iran could not afford to let him acquire nuclear weapons whilst being
itself disarmed. It is entirely understandable therefore that the
Iranian leadership sought to counter Saddam Hussein’s nuclear
weapons programme with a nuclear weapons programme of their own.

All
the evidence however points to the Iranian nuclear weapons programme
being significantly downgraded in the decade following Saddam
Hussein’s defeat in 1991, and then having been abandoned completely
following his overthrow in 2003.

Not
only is that the conclusion all the evidence points to, but it is
also the opinion of the US intelligence community, which in 2007
publicly confirmed that Iran was no longer pursuing a nuclear weapons
programme.

“Our
judgment is that clearly there was a period where Iran was chasing a
nuclear weapon. We have no doubt about that. In 2003, we found them
red-handed with facilities they shouldn’t have had and material
they shouldn’t have had………..They have not pursued a weapon –
to our best judgment and to the judgment of all of our allies, they
haven’t pursued a weapon per se since that period of time.”

It
is therefore nothing short of bizarre that US demands Iran
discontinue its nuclear weapons programme took off precisely after
Iran had – as the US knew – abandoned its nuclear weapons
programme.

Not
only did Iran face a succession of ever more threatening demands to
abandon a nuclear programme the US knew it had already abandoned, but
these demands were combined with ever harsher sanctions, culminating
in the most comprehensive package of sanctions of all, imposed on
Iran as recently as 2012.

These
demands and these sanctions were accompanied by a constant drumbeat
of propaganda against Iran.

Its
leaders were called religious fanatics and sponsors of terrorism.
They were accused of genocidal and megalomaniac plans there is no
evidence they ever had.

Iran
was accused of plotting aggression against neighbouring countries,
though there is no evidence of this, and though the single greatest
act of aggression carried out in the recent history of the Middle
East was Saddam Hussein’s attack on Iran – which the Western
powers and the Arab states supported.

Meanwhile
the country itself was represented as a repressive and reactionary
medieval theocracy, which – for all its problems – no one who
knows anything of the country believes it is.

All
this happened alongside continuous threats of military action, which
– according to some reports – on more than one occasion
came dangerously close to happening, and which the same reports say
only failed to happen because of the strong opposition of the US
military.

Why
this relentless pressure and threats against a country for supposedly
having a nuclear weapons programme which in reality – as everyone
knew – it had stopped having?

The
short answer is that the US and its regional allies – Israel and
Saudi Arabia – became alarmed at the influence Iran achieved in the
region following the US’s overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

Whatever
the US’s intentions when it overthrew Saddam Hussein, a regionally
dominant position for a politically independent and (relatively)
democratic Iran was definitely not one of them.

That
however was precisely what Saddam Hussein’s overthrow brought
about.

The
defeat of Israel by Iran’s ally Hezbollah in 2006 was for
Washington – and Riyadh and Jerusalem – the final straw.

The
result was the relentless campaign launched against Iran in
connection with a nuclear weapons programme everyone knew no longer
existed.

Inevitably,
in order to give some coherence to this campaign, it escalated into a
demand that Iran abandon any attempt to develop an independent
nuclear capability at all – whether it be for military or civilian
use.

That
in essence was what the demand had become over the last few years.

Not
surprisingly Iran rejected this demand – which would have required
it to stop doing what it had every legal right to do – as would any
other country that was faced with such a demand but which valued its
political independence.

In
the meantime, as the pressure on Iran grew, governments and people in
the Middle East who were seen as either actually or potentially
allied to Iran – including the Syrian government of President
Bashar Al-Assad, the democracy movements in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia,
and the Houthi movement in Yemen, also came under attack.

The
result is a Middle East racked by instability and war.

The
lifting of sanctions against Iran represents the failure of this
policy.

It
has not happened because Iran has made concessions over the state of
its nuclear programme.

Those
concessions Iran did make do not compromise Iran’s ability to
develop an independent nuclear capability – which is all Iran has
been doing for many years now, and which was the red line it was not
prepared to cross. If the US had wanted an agreement along these
lines, it could have had it long ago.

It
has happened for two other reasons

The
first reason is that Iran did not buckle under the pressure.

Far
from giving up its nuclear programme, it responded by escalating it
to the point where it had mastered the entire nuclear fuel cycle –
thereby showing to the US that there was nothing the US could do to
stop it.

The
second reason was that in 2014 the great Eurasian powers – Russia
and China – finally called a stop to the sanctions policy.

The
key event was rumours that began to spread in the autumn of 2014 that
Russia and Iran were close to finalising an “oil for goods” swap
deal, and that Russia was reconsidering its previous decision not to
supply S300 missiles to Iran.

This
together with fears that China was looking for ways to provide
financing to Iran through the new financial institutions it was
setting up, caused alarm in Washington that the entire sanctions
regime was about to collapse.

Of
particular concern for Washington was the fear that following the
Russian and Chinese moves it would be impossible for the US to keep
its European allies in line by persuading them to continue with a
sanctions policy they could no longer see the point in.

The
result was that when Iran offered the US a face-saving way out in the
form of the present agreement, the US had no option but to agree.

“But
if everybody thinks, “Oh, no, we’re just tough; the United States
of America, we have our secondary sanctions; we can force people to
do what we want.” I actually heard that argument on television this
morning. I’ve heard it from a number of the organisations that are
working that are opposed to this agreement. They’re spreading the
word, “America is strong enough, our banks are tough enough; we can
just bring the hammer down and force our friends to do what we want
them to.”

Well,
look – a lot of business people in this room. Are you kidding me?
The United States is going to start sanctioning our allies and their
banks and their businesses because we walked away from a deal and
we’re going to force them to do what we want them to do even though
they agreed to the deal we came to? Are you kidding?

That
is a recipe quickly, my friends, for them to walk away from Ukraine,
where they are already very dicey and ready to say, “Well, we’ve
done our bit.” They were ready in many cases to say, “Well, we’re
the ones paying the price for your sanctions.” We – it was Obama
who went out and actually put together a sanctions regime that had an
impact. By – I went to China. We persuaded China, “Don’t buy
more oil.” We persuaded India and other countries to step back.

Can
you imagine trying to sanction them after persuading them to put in
phased sanctions to bring Iran to the negotiating table, and when
they have not only come to the table but they made a deal, we turn
around and nix the deal and then tell them you’re going to have to
obey our rules on the sanctions anyway?

That
is a recipe very quickly, my friends, businesspeople here, for the
American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world –
which is already bubbling out there…..”

What
Kerry is saying here is that the US had no choice. If it had not
agreed to the deal Iran offered, the sanctions regime would have
collapsed, dealing a humiliating defeat to the US.

Rather
than face that disaster the US had no alternative but to agree to
what Iran offered.

What
that amounts to is an agreement to lift the sanctions in return for
limits on a nuclear programme Kerry admits was never intended to
result in a nuclear weapon in the first place.

The
deal however still leaves Iran in possession of the technology it has
developed. Indeed, according to some experts, the deal leaves
Iran with the material and technology to develop a nuclear weapon in
about a year, should it ever choose to do so.

This
interview of Kerry’s has not been widely reported despite – or
perhaps because – it casts a fascinating light on the private
thoughts of the US government.

First
of all it shows that for all its outward show of confidence the US
government is acutely worried about the long-term position of the US
dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and is nervous of doing
anything – such as threatening to enforce sanctions on its European
allies – that might undermine it

Those
like the US economist Paul Krugman who say the US dollar’s reserve
currency status doesn’t matter should know the US government
doesn’t agree with them.

Kerry’s
interview also shows that for all the outward show of unity, behind
the scenes the US’s sanctions policy against Russia is coming in
for a great deal of criticism, with European governments clearly
unenthusiastic about it – just as they were unenthusiastic about
the sanctions the US persuaded them to impose on Iran.

Lastly,
it also shows that for all the tough talk and bluster, the US’s
actual ability to force its will on its European allies is limited,
and that the US knows it.

If
the major European governments unite to oppose a policy, the US has
no option but to back down and abandon it.

Ultimately
however the single most important thing that comes out from Kerry’s
interview is the smell of defeat.

Though
Kerry makes the best case for the Iran deal he can, he cannot in the
end hide the fact that it was the imminent collapse of the sanctions
regime that forced the US’s hand, and which forced it to agree a
deal with Iran that it would not have agreed to otherwise.

There
is an important lesson here for Russia.

Iran
is a much smaller, much poorer and much weaker country than Russia.
Though by no means an undeveloped country, it lacks the vast
scientific, technological and industrial resources that Russia has.

Nor
does Iran have the global influence or the advantage of permanent
membership of the UN Security Council that Russia has.

The
sanctions the US imposed on Iran hurt Iran far more than the
sanctions the US has imposed on Russia have hurt Russia.

Like
Russia Iran also has a small but very vocal minority that hankers for
rapprochement with the US at literally any price. In 2009 this
minority tried unsuccessfully to stage a colour revolution in Tehran
– just as Russia’s similar minority tried – and failed – to
stage a colour revolution in Moscow in 2011.

In
the end, by standing firm on all the essentials whilst acting at all
times with maximum flexibility, Iran has seen the challenge off.

The
result is Iran has emerged the unequivocal victor from this affair,
with its position today stronger than it was a decade ago – before
the attack on it began.

If
Iran can win this sort of duel against the US, then so can Russia.

Russia
is in a much better position to do it than Iran was.

There
is no reason in fact why Russia should not do it, and there is no
reason to doubt it will.

CrossTalk on Iran: Neocon revenge?

With the end of the original sanctions now in play, Washington’s neocons and allies are down, but certainly not on the run. What is their greatest fear? That peace and prosperity will break out? In the meantime, what will be the impact on Iran – the country that is the clear winner in all of this?